Friends,
I don’t mean to sound melodramatic, but we have entered a new era.
This new era will look different from the old one and it will require folks to revisit their assumptions, build new business models, and recalibrate international relations.
First let’s get some ridiculous things out of the way.
I’m sure that there will be some folks in the Trump Administration that are offended that I’m pointing this out, but the roll-out and the evidence the President presented on Wednesday was sloppy and unconvincing.
Calculating the tariffs
The rationale President Trump announced to the world on Wednesday for imposing these “reciprocal tariffs” is that other countries charge high tariffs on goods coming from the United States, along with manipulating their currency and imposing other trade barriers, which disadvantages American workers and American products.
These unfair trade practices certainly take place, it is well documented, and economists and trade lawyers have spent decades studying these practices and developing methods to measure them.
But President Trump and his team didn’t rely on the strong evidence that is out there.
Instead, they used this prop, which severely undermined their moral argument.
President Trump and his team developed a methodology for calculating their tariffs and then created these simple looking charts to explain and justify their decisions.
For each country, all the Administration did was to take the value of the U.S. trade deficit in goods with a particular country and divide that by the value of U.S. goods sold to that country… that resulted in a percentage which they then labeled “Tariffs Charged to the U.S.A. Including Currency Manipulation and Trade Barriers.”
There are a lot of ways to measure the trade barriers that countries place on U.S. goods… dividing the trade deficit by total U.S. goods sold to a country is NOT one of them.
To derive the tariffs the U.S. would impose on those countries (something called “U.S.A. Discounted Reciprocal Tariffs”), they simply divided that first number by 2.
There was an exception to this calculation methodology. Countries that have a trade deficit with the United States (i.e. those countries that buy more U.S. goods than the U.S. buys from them) weren’t subject to this calculation. For those countries, the Administration assigned an arbitrary figure of 10% as the Tariffs Charged to the U.S.A. and then matched that with a 10% U.S.A. Discounted Reciprocal Tariff. This means that countries that currently buy more goods from the US than the US buys from them (presumably countries that are doing international trade the right way in President Trump’s eyes) have been accused, without evidence, of unfair trade practices and are being punished with an across the board 10% tariff.
If you’re interested, this 10-minute video by the Canadian broadcaster CBC News explains this in detail. There is a little bit of math, but trust me, it ain’t that hard to understand.
So, the figure in those charts that purports to measure unfair trade practices isn’t a measure of unfair trade practices. It is a measure of the trade deficit in goods (services are NOT included).
But Matt (I hear you say), isn’t a trade deficit bad and therefore measuring it this way is fine?
Well, trade deficits can be bad, but often they don’t matter at all, and often have absolutely nothing to do with whether a country is being unfair to the United States.
Madagascar grows and exports vanilla beans, vanilla doesn’t grow in the United States. Madagascar is extremely poor and can’t afford to buy the products the United States exports (Madagascar’s GDP per capita in 2023 was $506.20).
Does that mean the United States is being harmed by buying vanilla from Madagascar? Of course not… but under this methodology, Madagascar supposedly harms the United States with 93% “Tariffs Charged to the U.S.A. Including Currency Manipulation and Trade Barriers” and deserves a 47% Discounted Reciprocal Tariff imposed on their exports to the United States.
By misrepresenting the rationale and by mislabeling the way tariffs are calculated, President Trump and his team are destroying any credibility they could have in what will be long and difficult negotiations, as well as the battle for global public opinion (see more on that below).
The President had a number of options on how he could make the case for his policy. He decided to make a moral argument about why these tariffs are necessary (other countries are being unfair to America), but then, upon cursory examination, the entire claim of unfairness appears falsified, certainly for some countries.
Let’s take a couple of examples from the President’s prop/chart.
Page 8 of the Reciprocal Tariffs charts that President Trump held up during his Rose Garden event on Wednesday evening.
Norfolk Island
Norfolk Island is a “non-self-governing overseas territory of Australia” (according to the CIA’s unclassified World Fact Book) with a population of about 2000 people and a total land mass of about 36 square kilometers (if it were a box it would be 6 km by 6 km or about 0.2 times the size of the District of Columbia).
Norfolk Island doesn’t have its own currency (it uses the Australian dollar), its agricultural land covers about 9 square kilometers, its “government” consists of an administrator with island council of five members, and it has no independent relations with other countries. Of the “exports” that Norfolk Island produces ($2.1 million in 2023), about $600,000 supposedly went to the United States in 2023 (perhaps Norfolk Island pine seeds?). But as The Guardian revealed, that $600,000 is likely wrong, since the data includes mislabeled shipments in the U.S. that confused Norfolk, Virginia with Norfolk Island (also someone made the mistake of thinking that Timberland boots, a Stratham, New Hampshire company, made their boots on Norfolk Island). But even if that $600,000 were true, let’s put that number in perspective, Norfolk Island (again an island of about 2000 people) imports $1.2 million in beer, hard liquor, and wine each year given its tourism trade, presumably some of that is Budweiser, bourbon, and California wines.
The island’s total imports (from everywhere in the world) in 2023 were $31.5 million, compared with $2.1 million in exports.
Perhaps, unsurprisingly, an island that size, that is nearly a thousand miles off the east coast of Australia, doesn’t consume a lot of goods exported directly from the United States (they may consume quite a few goods that are exported from the United States to Australia and then re-exported to Norfolk Island, but I don’t have that data). Norfolk Island does not have its own tariffs, it does not manipulate its currency (it doesn’t even have its own currency), it belongs to a country that has its own trade deficit with the United States, and its only real “trade barrier” is vast stretches of the South Pacific.
Norfolk Island’s 58% “Tariffs Charged to the USA” is an invented number, arrived at in a completely disingenuous way. The idea that the U.S. will now “punish” Norfolk Island with a 29% “USA Discounted Reciprocal Tariff” is ridiculous.
Heard and McDonald Islands
This one is even more ridiculous, and it suggests that the President and his team didn’t even bother to use Google.
The Territory of Heard Island and McDonald Islands (HIMI) is an Australian external territory near Antarctica in the Indian Ocean. It has no airport and no seaport and is a two-week ocean voyage from Australia.
Heard and McDonald Islands have no exports and no imports BECAUSE… wait for it… it is uninhabited… its population is zero.
It is extremely difficult to charge tariffs, manipulate currency, or erect trade barriers when the territory in question has no population. The Administration might as well have imposed 10% discounted reciprocal tariffs on the Moon or Venus.
This is amateur hour kind of stuff, that completely undermines the credibility of the United States.
Had this prop/chart been reviewed by anyone before the President took it on stage, these ridiculous mistakes could have been avoided.
I suspect that this prop, and these tariff numbers, were created by Peter Navarro, the President’s special advisor on trade and manufacturing, and that Peter, as he is inclined to do, refused to check his work with anyone else… and if anyone were to check his math, he would yell and scream at them, questioning their loyalty to the President.
Had President Trump and his team simply performed their own basic calculation on this so-called country, they would have seen something wrong.
It may sound like I’m being too hard on the President and his team… BUT this was the President’s big event on Wednesday afternoon. He picked the date, he was the one on center stage, it was his chance to make the case to the American people and an audience around the world.
The way the President explained his policy and the evidence he used was NOT effective.
And it’s not like the U.S. Government lacks the evidence of harmful trade practices.
Just two days before President Trump took the stage in the Rose Garden, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative issued their annual report on Foreign Trade Barriers, 397-pages.
The President even held the report up during his speech… but it doesn’t appear that he or his staff actually bothered to read the report or used it to inform the actual tariff rates.
Why this is a problem
The problem is that the President was trying to make a moral argument to justify the imposition of these tariffs, the centerpiece of an expansive new trade and economic policy that he intends will change the world. His message was: the rest of the world has been unfair to America and those countries impose far worse tariffs and other trade barriers on the United States, than what he is doing.
But if you are going to make a moral argument, then it is absolutely necessary to argue from a position of moral strength.
If you are accusing others of lying and want to convince your audience that your actions to address those lies are appropriate, then you can’t be seen by your audience as untruthful.
It destroys your credibility, and it makes achieving the objectives of your policy that much harder.
It didn’t have to be this way, there are far more effective and persuasive ways to make the case for what the President and his Administration is trying to do.
What is the Trump Administration trying to do?
President Trump and his advisors have described three objectives they are trying to achieve:
1) Raise revenue from tariffs to offset income taxes.
2) Impose tariffs on third countries as leverage to get them to remove trade barriers to U.S. exports.
3) Re-engineer the global trading and economic system so that manufacturing for America is done in America by Americans.
On their own, each are reasonable policy goals, but unfortunately these objectives are in tension with each other.
The first objective only works if the other two don’t work. Tariffs replacing income tax as revenue for the U.S. Government can only be successful if the negotiations to remove those tariffs don’t work and if there isn’t a renaissance of manufacturing in the United States (if goods are manufactured in the United States by American workers, then the U.S. Government doesn’t collect any revenue through tariffs on manufactured goods).
Achieving the second objective makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the third objective. If other countries negotiate as President Trump says he wants them to and they remove their tariffs and trade barriers, as it appears the “country” of Taiwan is doing (Taiwan eyes zero tariffs with US, pledges more investment, Reuters, April 6, 2025), then the incentives for manufacturing in the United States disappear.
I believe that the third objective is the primary goal of the President’s approach, and that the Administration is willing to abandon the other two objectives (even if they refuse to say that out-loud).
President Trump wants to re-engineer the global economic and trade system, so that the United States becomes an industrial and manufacturing powerhouse again. When he talks about “making America great again,” this is what he means. He believes that the policy decisions, starting in the 1980s, to incentivize the outsourcing of manufacturing by unilaterally dropping American trade barriers and tariffs, was a major mistake. He has been railing against these decisions, as well as the individuals who advocate for these policies, for decades.
In the President’s opinion, this “free trade” approach, embraced by traditional Republicans, as well as by Democrats like President Clinton and President Obama, enriched other countries at the expense of American workers. It also enriched elites in America, as well as the professional class, who saw their 401Ks increase in value (as American companies shed costly American workers for low-cost workers in third countries, their profitability increased). Sure, American consumers benefited by consuming moderately cheaper goods (a moderate benefit spread across a lot of people), but for those who lost their jobs, and the communities that were devastated by the exodus of manufacturing from the United States, these policies were a disaster.
This is what President Trump and his cabinet members say that they are trying to fix (I recommend watching these interviews of Treasury Secretary Bessent and Commerce Secretary Lutnick to get a better sense of these positions).
So, if re-engineering the global trade and economic system is the primary goal, then keeping the tariffs in place permanently is a necessity.
Who is the target of these tariffs?
If we follow this logic, then the primary target of these tariffs is NOT foreign capitals or the trade ministers of those countries or the WTO, it is the C-Suites, boardrooms and institutional investors around the world. The tariffs are meant to change the decision-making of companies (not countries) because it is companies (and their investors) that make capital allocation decisions to build factories and hire workers to make goods.
Let me state this again: the target of these tariffs is NOT countries, it is companies (and their investors).
The Trump Administration is trying to get companies to behave differently and make different investment decisions.
The message that the Administration wants these companies to internalize is this:
The United States is the largest and wealthiest consumer market in the world, if you want to sell your goods in our market, you need to build factories in the United States and hire Americans. If you fail to do that, you will face higher costs and barriers to export from third countries into the United States AND you will face competition from companies that take the advice of the U.S. Government by manufacturing in the United States. The U.S. Government will aid companies that invest, build, hire, and manufacture in the United States and the U.S. Government will discriminate against companies that fail to do that.
For the Administration, the sooner that companies (and their investors) internalize this message, the better. If the Administration has any hope of benefiting politically from this policy change, then companies must start making investments to build new factories and hire workers in the United States right NOW.
This likely explains why the President is in such a hurry to get these tariffs in place, he needs as much time as possible for companies to do what he wants them to do: build and hire in America.
This isn’t about you…
The failure to recognize who these tariffs are directed at is a big deal. While the tariffs are delineated by national jurisdictions and most of the commentary is focused on how third countries will or won’t negotiate with the U.S. Government, or on how this ruins U.S. relationships with its partners, I think this misses the point.
Objective #2 (leverage to enable negotiations with third countries) isn’t really the objective, and the Administration doesn’t really care about negotiations with third countries, in fact it needs those negotiations to fail. [Perversely, this would explain why the President and his team didn’t make a persuasive argument on Wednesday]
For Objective #3 to be successful, the Administration NEEDS the tariffs to stay in place for the foreseeable future, so that companies (and their investors) understand that building a factory in the United States and hiring Americans can be cost effective (and even profitable) in the long run. Building new factories, hiring a bunch of relatively high-cost workers, and investing in automation is a massive expenditure that would need to be amortized over decades. If companies (and their investors) believe that the tariffs will be negotiated away in six months or even four years, then they won’t make long-term investments to manufacture in the United States.
To achieve the objective of re-engineering the global trade and economic system, business leaders and investors must BELIEVE that the era of globalization and free trade is over.
Dilemma…
This points to a dilemma for the Trump Administration.
To keep the capital markets from cratering (and maintain the narrow political consensus the President needs to carry out his policies), the Administration needs to keep the door open to negotiations that will lift these tariffs… BUT, BUT… to achieve the goal of an manufacturing renaissance in the United States (the Administration’s primary goal), then those same capital markets must believe that the tariffs are permanent.
Humans have a tendency to be able to hold two contradictory ideas in their minds at the same time, but I’m not sure how the Administration will thread this needle.
Where is Congress?
Some may be wondering: how can the executive branch do all of this without legislation from Congress?
Well, I’m glad you asked.
Over the past few decades, Congress gave the Presidency a series of tools and statutory authorities which makes this kind of re-engineering of the global trade and economic system possible. [Our friends in Europe and Japan did not give their leaders this power, which means they will have a much harder time adapting to this new era]
Many assumed that these authorities and tools would only be used to reinforce “free trade” and enable a broader policy of globalization. There was a failure of imagination by those who advocated for the status quo, as they couldn’t grasp that these tools and authorities might also be used to dismantle “free trade.”
There are four main statutory authorities that underpin the Administration’s efforts:
Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA)
Taken together, these four pieces of legislation, provide a solid legal foundation for the President and his team to do what they are doing. Each of these have been challenged in the courts and each has held firm going back decades.
If Congress wanted to claw back its Constitutional authorities and prevent President Trump from doing what he is doing, Congress would need a veto-proof majority in both houses to do it, as the President would likely veto any attempt to water down or remove these laws.
That seems unlikely to happen.
It is also not clear that Congress wants to stop the Presidency from re-engineering the global trading system. In many ways, the objective of bringing about a manufacturing renaissance is a goal that is shared across both parties. President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act all sought to bring about this same objective (that is why European officials howled so loudly about those efforts with their “Buy American” provisions).
The political division over these efforts is NOT so much a disagreement about the goal, as it is a disagreement about the methods to achieve that goal.
That political dynamic should give companies (and their investors) confidence that most of these measures will stay in place for years to come (for the most part, the Biden Administration did not remove the tariffs the Trump Administration imposed on the PRC in 2018).
Our policies aren’t all about China… but it really is all about China
Over the past quarter century, the PRC has become a massive gravity well for manufacturing and industry, sucking in factories and jobs. Beijing’s unfair trade practices and industrial policies have harmed developed economies, as well as developing economies, by robbing them of the kinds of manufacturing jobs that have benefited Chinese workers. Beijing’s unwillingness to fulfill its obligations and responsibilities inside a global free trade system created the conditions for the collapse of globalization and support for free trade. The United States is responding to those conditions. It appears clear to me that President Trump and his Administration have concluded that the PRC will not negotiate in good faith.
I think the President’s efforts would be much more effective if he were to make the PRC the centerpiece of his arguments, rather than equating Vietnam, the European Union, Canada, Mexico, Japan, and South Korea as equally harmful as the PRC.
This effort to spread the blame, rather than calling out the worst and most consequential offender, undermines the moral argument as well.
On the other hand, this approach of spreading the blame, does foreclose the option of “friendshoring,” the preferred approach of the Biden Administration, and makes it clear to companies (and investors) that building and hiring in America is the approach they should employ.
Beijing’s retaliation…
Many had predicted that the Chinese Communist Party would play it cool and avoid massive retaliation, but within 48 hours, those assumptions proved wrong.
On Friday, Beijing announced a series of retaliatory actions:
34% tariffs on all U.S. imports starting April 10, without exceptions
Launched a competitiveness investigation into American medical devices
Launched an anti-dumping probe into American medical devices
Launched an anti-monopoly probe into DuPont Chemical
Suspended customs authority qualifications for 6 U.S. companies
Banned the export of “dual-use” items to 16 U.S. companies
Added 11 U.S. companies to the “Unreliable Entity List”
Imposed new export restrictions on items containing rare-earth elements
Filed WTO cases against the United States
On Saturday, the PRC Government released a statement denouncing the U.S. tariffs and it is clear that State media outlets are running a major effort to explain to Party members and the Chinese people that this is all America’s fault.
Expect that this media blitz will extend to the rest of the world with one simple and clear message: Everything is America’s fault.
This is where the Trump Administration’s reticence to clearly blame the PRC (and instead spread the blame to the entire world) could backfire.
By failing to make a persuasive, concise, and sustained argument about what the PRC has done and failed to do, the Trump Administration risks losing the global public opinion war.
I suspect that the President and his closest advisors on these trade actions dismiss global public opinion as unimportant, but failing to take global public opinion into account will almost certainly undermine their efforts to convince companies (and investors) to build and hire workers in the United States.
The PRC is waging its battle against the United States across all elements of its national power, but it appears that the Administration has hamstrung itself and can’t make a coherent argument about why others should help Washington, rather than Beijing.
One example of this was on Friday, when the Singaporean Prime Minister Lawrence Wong addressed his country with a message on the “Implications of US Tariffs.”
Singaporean PM Lawrence Wong address to his nation.
PM Wong provides essentially no context for why the United States imposed these tariffs and tells his nation that America has destroyed globalization and that things will be tough for them. There is absolutely no mention of the PRC (or that the PRC continues to undermine Singaporean political coherence) and all blame is placed on Washington.
As I watch his remarks, I’m deeply frustrated, but PM Wong is no anti-American ideologue. The fact that he is saying these things suggests that Washington and its diplomats did nothing to prepare the ground for such an important policy shift. He is saying and doing what we would expect given the lack of preparation.
Expect to see this narrative take hold across the world, as Beijing feeds it through its outlets, and the United States fails to take effective action to counter it.
All of this was entirely predictable (that Beijing would wage a massive propaganda campaign against the United States), but the Trump Administration has been dismantling the institutions built to counter this information warfare (here, here, and here), and it has been purging its own national security officials at the exact time it needs them most.
Allowing some conspiracy theorists to target and drive out national security officials who are falsely accused of being “disloyal” (five individuals hired by the National Security Advisor at the National Security Council, as well as the Director and Deputy Director of the National Security Agency) just as the United States is adopting a major policy shift, is just plain reckless.
These are serious times and we need serious people.
I wish I could be more optimistic.
Thanks for reading!
Matt
MUST READ
VIDEO – Empire of Illusion: Frank Dikötter on Why China Isn’t a Superpower
Peter Robinson and Frank Dikötter, Uncommon Knowledge, April 1, 2025
Frank Dikötter is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution who has recently returned to the United States after living in Hong Kong since 2006. In this provocative conversation, Dikötter challenges the prevailing narrative about China’s rise. Drawing from his latest book, China After Mao: The Rise of a Superpower, Dikötter argues that the Chinese Communist Party has masterfully projected the image of a powerful, modern, and economically dominant nation—but says that image is largely a façade.
COMMENT – Take the time to watch or listen to this interview.
Chinese Scientist Ostracized Over Gene-Edited Babies Seeks Comeback
Liyan Qi and Jonathan Cheng, Wall Street Journal, March 26, 2025
He Jiankui stands by a controversial research approach that landed him in prison as he aims to tackle Alzheimer’s disease.
Chinese scientist He Jiankui set off global outrage and landed in prison after he skirted ethical guidelines and claimed he had produced genetically modified babies designed to resist HIV infection.
Now, the self-styled gene editing pioneer is trying to stage a comeback with another controversial project, aiming to use gene editing to prevent Alzheimer’s disease in future generations.
One monumental hurdle: gaining the trust of a scientific community that treats him as a pariah.
International media has dubbed him “China’s Frankenstein.” He has no academic affiliations. He declines to reveal where his funding comes from or who his backers are. It isn’t helping that he won’t repudiate his controversial approach. On March 11, He posted on X that “Ethics is holding back scientific innovation and progress.”
This is how China skirts U.S. chip bans
Viola Zhou, Rest of World, April 1, 2025
Chinese tech companies use smugglers, loopholes, and innovation to work around U.S. chip restrictions.
President Donald Trump’s administration last week added 80 companies — mostly Chinese — to a list of firms barred for national security reasons from acquiring U.S. technology. The move expands a crackdown on Chinese companies that provide cloud computing services and servers powered by American chips.
U.S. officials said the restrictions aim to prevent China from developing high-performance computing capabilities, such as quantum technologies, for military use. During President Trump’s first term, the government banned several Chinese companies from accessing U.S. chips and other technologies. The Biden administration later introduced broader restrictions on exporting advanced chips and chipmaking equipment to China, seeking to limit the country’s ability to advance in artificial intelligence and high-performance computing.
China’s Gray Zone Tactics: Can Taiwan Restore the Median Line?
Silva Shih, CommonWealth Magazine, March 18, 2025
Chinese vessels frequently damage Taiwan’s undersea cables, and PLA aircraft circle the island. The U.S. military warns that China’s coast guard crossing the median line is a rehearsal for unification by force. Yet, Taiwan’s lax defenses have allowed Chinese nationals to sail a boat straight to the island’s west coast undetected. Why is Taiwan so unprepared?
On June 8, 2024, 60-year-old Ruan Fangyong boarded a speedboat in Fujian Province on China’s southern coast and embarked on a trip across the Taiwan Strait. He was arrested near the mouth of the Danshui River in northwestern Taiwan the following day after colliding with a ferry. Ruan claimed he was escaping political persecution in China and was seeking freedom. He also claimed that he once served as a commander on a Chinese navy vessel.
Ruan was eventually sentenced to an eight-month prison term for illegally entering Taiwan. What has left many dumbfounded is the fact that he was able to sail straight to the Danshui River without being detected by Taiwan’s Navy or Coast Guard. This incident, occurring amid frequent PLA harassment, exposes weaknesses in Taiwan’s defense preparedness.
Does Expelling Foreign Journalists Change News Coverage of China?
Matt DeButts and Jenifer Pan, Stanford Center on China’s Economy and Institutions (SCCEI), April 1, 2025
Insights
The 19 expelled journalists represented about half of the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Post reporting corps stationed in China.
Analysis of over 32,000 news stories about China before and after the expulsions shows no chilling effect on news coverage of China at these or other U.S. outlets.
There was no significant change in the “origination” of news items (i.e., news spurred by a government action versus other news), article tone, source diversity, or number of stories in each outlet (absolute and relative to other news).
A rise in collaborative reporting (multiple bylines) in China coverage and increased use of both digital technology and auxiliaries (contractors and freelancers) may account for the resiliency of foreign news coverage following journalist expulsions.
The Eight Tribes of Trump and China
Tanner Greer, The Scholar's Stage, March 31, 2025
Last October I published a short breakdown of four geopolitical ‘schools’ that might shape China strategy under Trump. That piece was a pre-election preview of a much larger report I was writing for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. I published the preview as security in the event that Trump lost the election and no one cared anymore about GOP foreign policy debates. I figured better publish something before election day while interest in Trumpworld was guaranteed.
You know what happened next: Trump won. Interest in GOP debates did not abate. So I continued to work on the report. This week the full thing was published. You can read it, in all its twenty-page glory, over at the FPRI website.
COMMENT – I think Tanner Greer did some really important work here, mapping out the landscape within the Republican Party.
China Wanted to Negotiate With Trump. Now It’s Arming for Another Trade War.
Lingling Wei, Wall Street Journal, April 5, 2025
Communication between Washington and Beijing is at a standstill, raising the prospects of a long cycle of tariff retaliation. ‘Trump and Xi are locked in a paradox of pressure and pride.’
Beijing spent the first months of President Trump’s second term trying—and failing—to figure out the new administration’s approach to China. Officials hoping to build lines of communication with Washington had no luck.
With Trump’s latest tariff action, the magnitude of his trade assault hit home and Beijing’s hope for dialogue melted into frustration and anger.
Until now its response had been restrained. On Friday, Beijing matched Trump’s 34% additional tariffs and for the first time it hit all U.S. products, no exceptions. It also restricted exports of certain rare-earth minerals, added U.S. companies to trade blacklists and aimed an antitrust probe at the China operations of U.S. chemicals and materials company DuPont.
Trump’s response to its retaliation suggested things would only get worse. In a social-media post, Trump wrote, “CHINA PLAYED IT WRONG, THEY PANICKED—THE ONE THING THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO DO!”
The lack of communication between the two sides shows no signs of letting up. What lies ahead is likely to be a cycle of tit-for-tat retaliation, making it hard to even start negotiations in the near term.
Beijing had been cautiously optimistic in the Trump administration’s first days. Xi Jinping dispatched a top envoy to attend Trump’s inauguration, a move that was seen as an opening for fruitful communication. While Trump had threatened to hit China with tariffs when campaigning for president, he held off on Day One. His only mention of China in his inaugural speech, about wresting the Panama Canal from Chinese control, raised no alarms.
Trump had indicated that he was open to a deal with China, and Beijing hoped to explore one centered on what China was willing to offer, such as more Chinese purchases of American products and more Chinese investment in the U.S.
COMMENT - I don’t buy it… Xi Jinping rejected on multiple occasions direct communication with President Trump.
Beijing knows that the only individuals in each system that can make any decisions or compromises are the two leaders. President Trump signaled both publicly and behind the scenes that he would meet with Xi or get on a call with him.
Xi rejected those offers.
Beijing’s preferred approach is to drag-out negotiations at a low level to play for time to discourage their countrerparties from taking action against them. President Trump and his team made it absolutely clear that they were open to direct leader-to-leader communications. They invited Xi to the inauguration, they consistently asked for calls between Trump and Xi.
The Chinese did not want to do this and felt they would be better off by not talking.
The Chinese were also confident that they could then feign innocence when the Trump Admin imposed these measures by pretending that they were open to talks.
So I think the title of the article is objectively false… because the Chinese did NOT want to negotiate with Trump.
Authoritarianism
Hong Kong’s Democratic Party to hold members’ vote on disbandment next month
Hillary Leung, Hong Kong Free Press, March 26, 2025
China Further Formalizes Its Anti-Foreign Sanctions Legal Arsenal: The Regulations on Implementation of the Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law
Lester Ross and Kenneth Zhou, Wilmer Hale, March 31, 2025
AUDIO – Inside the Soviet Cold War Machine Part 1 and Part 2
Jordan Schneider and Sergey Radchenko, China Talk, March 24 and April 1, 2025
COMMENT – Sergey Radchenko’s book is really important, and his 14-page Introduction is spectacular in framing the First Cold War and providing insights into the Second.
How a New Axis Called CRINK Is Working Against America
Timothy W. Martin, Ming Li, and Roque Ruiz, Wall Street Journal, April 1, 2025
Chinese high rollers pull back in Las Vegas, but other Asians up the ante
Azusa Kawakami, Nikkei Asia, March 30, 2025
‘Friends forever, never enemies', Chinese foreign minister tells Russia
Lidia Kelly, Reuters, March 31, 2025
Pen Names, Stern Warnings
David Bandurski, China Media Project, March 25, 2025
Taiwan accuses China's biggest chipmaker SMIC of 'illegally' poaching tech talent
Arjun Kharpal, CNBC, March 28, 2025
Taiwan Dares to Hope Trump Will Back It Against Beijing
Jonathan Cheng, et al., Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2025
China launches large-scale military exercises around Taiwan
Kathrin Hille, Wall Street Journal, March 31, 2025
China 'closes in' on Taiwan with large-scale military drills
Thompson Chau, et al., Nikkei Asia, April 1, 2025
Another Beijing warning over Hutchison’s Panama ports deal
Denise Tsangand and Lam Ka-sing, South China Morning Post, March 30, 2025
Xi Showdown with Li Ka-shing Threatens China’s Pro-Business Push
Lucille Liu and Shirley Zhao, Bloomberg, March 31, 2025
Pro-Beijing media ramp up attack on CK Hutchison ports deal
Reuters, March 31, 2025
China’s complex social credit system evolves with 23 new guidelines from Beijing
Carol Yang, South China Morning Post, April 1, 2025
Environmental Harms
22. China’s missed emissions target poses challenge to global climate efforts
Erin Hale, Al Jazerra, March 25, 2025
23. CNN video analysis finds hundreds of Chinese boats suspected of illegal fishing
CNN, March 10, 2025
24. China’s Shadow Fleet: The Global Crisis of Illegal Fishing from Argentina To India – Analysis
Eurasia Review, March 20, 2025
25. China to expand carbon trading market to steel, cement and aluminium
Reuters, March 26, 2025
Reuters, April 3, 2025
Foreign Interference and Coercion
PM Carney’s Candidate Paul Chiang Steps Down After RCMP Confirms Probe Into “Bounty” Comments
Sam Cooper, The Bureau, April 1, 2025
Liberal candidate Paul Chiang resigns over comments about Tory candidate
Catherine Lévesque, National Post, March 31, 2025
Hong Kong Watch condemns Canadian politician Paul Chiang for dangerous bounty call
Hong Kong Watch, March 31, 2025
The price of Paul Chiang’s unacceptable comments
The Globe and Mail, March 31, 2025
Top Australian universities close Chinese Confucius Institutes
Yang Tian, BBC, April 2, 2025
Huawei lobbyists detained in EU corruption scandal
Laura Dubois, Financial Times, March 25, 2025
Mathieu Pollet, Politico, April 4, 2025
The Belgian prosecutor has charged eight people with active corruption, money laundering and criminal organization in an investigation into Huawei’s lobbying activities in Europe, it said in a statement on Friday.
The decision comes three weeks after police raids in Belgium and Portugal, as part of a probe into suspected illegal payments by the Chinese technology giant to secure support from European lawmakers in the company’s interests. Police authorities also searched European Parliament offices in Strasbourg.
Out of the eight suspects in the case, three were initially held in pre-trial detention and are now under electronic surveillance following appeals, according to the statement from the prosecutor. Two others were released "under conditions," it said. The remaining three are still in prison — two are appealing, while the third may still do so.
Huawei said in an earlier statement that it “takes these allegations seriously” and “has a zero tolerance policy towards corruption or other wrongdoing.”
ICE Arrests Owner of YaYa Noodles in Somerset County
Alexis Tarrazi, Patch, March 28, 2025
Canadian Banks Tied to Chinese Fentanyl Laundering Risk U.S. Treasury Sanctions After Cartel Terror Designation
Sam Cooper, The Bureau, March 29, 2025
Taiwanese soldiers guarding president’s office were spying for China
Vic Chiang, Washington Post, March 28, 2025
In Greenland, Vance Criticizes Denmark’s Stewardship of the Island
Natalie Andrews, et al., Wall Street Journal, March 28, 2025
Taiwan silent on publisher's sentencing details, rejects China criticism
Focus Taiwan, April 1, 2025
Chinese 'military unification' influencer forcibly deported
Focus Taiwan, April 1, 2025
No live-fire detected in latest PLA drills around Taiwan: MND
Focus Taiwan, April 1, 2025
China sentences Taiwan-based publisher to 3 years in prison
NHK, March 26, 2025
Japan draws up plan to evacuate 120,000 Okinawa islanders near Taiwan
Straits Times, March 30, 2025
Hi Sharp accused of using China parts in 'Made in Taiwan' cameras
Taiwan News, April 1, 2025
2 'military unification' Chinese spouses must leave Taiwan by March 31
Focus Taiwan, March 22, 2025
Taiwan civil society groups urge government to tighten immigration requirements for Chinese spouses
Radio Taiwan International, March 25, 2025
Chinese influencer Yaya ordered to leave Taiwan after posting pro-China video
Chunmei Huang, Radio Free Asia, April 25, 2025
Inside the CCP-Funded Travel Groups Looking to Influence Taiwanese
Ian Huang, The Diplomat, March 24, 2025
Taiwan says teacher's CCTV interview inappropriate
Keoni Everington, Taiwan News, March 27, 2025
Human Rights and Religious Persecution
China: conviction and sentencing of woman human rights defender He Fangmei and apparent disappearance of her two young daughters
United Nations, March 26, 2025
Topic: the sentencing in October 2024 by the Huixian Municipal Court in Xinxiang, Henan Province, of woman human rights defender He Fangmei to five years and six months in prison and the apparent disappearance of two of her children.
Ms. He Fangmei is a health rights defender, who has been advocating for vaccine safety and access to remedies for victims of defective vaccines. She started seeking accountability and compensation after her daughter, who was born in 2016, was diagnosed with a neurological disease which paralyzed her after receiving defective vaccines in March 2018. Ms. He co-founded the “Home for Vaccine Babies”, an informal network of families whose children developed a serious illness or disability after being injected defective vaccines. The network advocates for accountability, financial compensation, assistance with medical bills, as well as legislative action.
Special Procedures mandate holders have previously raised their concerns with the Chinese Government concerning the alleged enforced disappearance, detention and charges against Ms. He in a communication (AL CHN 10/2022). We thank the Government for the response received to this communication.
An earlier case of detention of Ms. He in 2018-2019 was addressed by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention in its opinion No. 32/2020. The Working Group determined that Ms. He’s detention was arbitrary and fell into categories I, II, III and V. In particular, her secret detention at an extrajudicial location was considered arbitrary per se, given that it involved elements of incommunicado detention and enforced disappearance.
ALLEGATIONS
Previous detention in 2019
On 25 February 2019, Ms. He Fangmei was seized by the police while she was demonstrating in front of the National Health Commission in Beijing with other families of children who had been stricken with illness or disability due to faulty vaccines.
On 4 March 2019, Ms. He was forcibly returned from Beijing to her home Province of Henan by the Henan police and subsequently detained. On 5 March 2019, she was ordered to serve a 15-day administrative detention sentence.
On 20 March 2019, Ms. He’s husband was informed that she had been formally placed in criminal detention by the Huixian county Public Security Bureau in Xinxiang for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” and was detained at the Xinxiang detention centre. Ms. He was told that she would be released if she admitted guilt, but she refused to do so.
On 26 April 2019, Ms. He was formally arrested. Her husband was only informed about her arrest two days later, without ever receiving an arrest notice.
Ms. He did not have access to a lawyer for three and a half months after the start of her criminal detention. When a lawyer requested to meet Ms. He in June 2019, they were reportedly told by the authorities that such a visit would “endanger national security”.
On 3 July 2019, a lawyer was finally able to meet with Ms. He.
On 26 July 2019, the Procuratorate indicted Ms. He and assigned the case to the Huixian City People’s Court. According to the indictment, prosecutors accused her of “picking quarrels” for soliciting donations, shouting slogans outside the Beijing offices of two government departments, unfurling a banner with slogans and disseminating an image of the banner online. After that, her lawyer applied twice for her release on “bail pending investigation”, but the Procuratorate rejected the requests.
On 15 November 2019, Ms. He was put on trial at the Huixian County Court. At the hearing, she pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors recommended a one-year prison sentence. The trial ended without a verdict being pronounced.
On 10 January 2020, the Huixian County prosecutors dropped the charges against Ms. He, and she was subsequently released.
…
CONCERNS
In the communication, we express our serious concern regarding the conviction and sentencing of Ms. He Fangmei on charges of “bigamy” and “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”, in apparent retaliation to exercising her right to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly as part of her legitimate human rights work, in particular her advocacy for vaccine safety and remedy for victims of defective vaccines. The use of vaguely worded provisions such as “picking quarrels and provoking trouble” and their persistent use against human rights defenders to unduly criminalize their legitimate activities and the exercising of their freedom of expression is cause for serious concern, as has been communicated by Special Procedures mandate holders to the Chinese Government on a number of occasions in recent years (AL CHN 12/2024, UA CHN 12/2021, AL CHN 4/2021, UA CHN 11/2020, AL CHN 22/2019, AL CHN 15/2019, UA CHN 14/2019).
We also wish to express concern for the alleged lack of adherence to due process guarantees in the trial of Ms. He Fangmei and the reported obstacles preventing Ms. He from meeting with her legal representative in order to prepare her legal defense prior to the trial. We call on the Chinese Government to ensure that lawyers are able to perform all their professional functions without improper interference and that all persons are entitled to access a lawyer of their choice to defend them in all stages of criminal proceedings.
Furthermore, we wish to express our utmost concern about the apparent disappearance of Ms. He Fangmei’s two youngest daughters, one of whom has a disability, and the placement in foster care of her eldest son, reportedly with no access to Ms. He’s family, despite clearly expressed wishes by Ms. He to have her children placed in the care of her sister.
We are reiterating our long-standing concern about the continuing practice in China of enforced disappearance and prolonged incommunicado detention, often in solitary confinement, of individuals who have been exercising their right to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly by peacefully expressing their concerns regarding matters affecting their lives, drawing local and other authorities’ attention to their situation, and protesting against their lack of response. The widespread denial by the authorities of due process rights and judicial safeguards, the withholding of information about human rights defenders’ detention, health and well-being to their families, legal representatives or persons with a legitimate interest constitute serious violations under international human rights law.
COMMENT – The Chinese Communist Party hates it when International Organizations call them out for abusing their own citizens.
U.S. Sanctions Chinese Officials, Citing Repression in Hong Kong and Tibet
Austin Ramzy, Wall Street Journal, April 1, 2025
U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Chinese and Hong Kong Officials for Pursuing Activists Abroad
Tiffany May, New York Times, April 1, 2025
Beijing's Pro-Natalist Push Continues to Strengthen
Carl Minzner, Council on Foreign Relations, March 31, 2025
Tibetans express concern about gutting of RFA, but say, ‘We still hear you’
Radio Free Asia, March 26, 2025
Hong Kong painter draws inspiration from city’s recent history in works at Art Basel
Kanis Leung, Associated Press, March 27, 2025
They will not forget Tibet: SF protesters call attention to alleged human rights violations
Choekyi Lhamo, Local News Matter, January 20, 2025
Chinese Indie Filmmaker Hit with Harsh “Cross-Provincial” Fine and Equipment Confiscation
Cindy Carter, China Digital Times, March 28, 2025
Stepping Into Emptiness
Lingua Sinica, April 1, 2025
Hong Kong security chief slams Ming Pao for defending reporter who asked why official’s trip was not announced
James Lee, Hong Kong Free Press, March 27, 2025
US bill proposes expediting Uyghur asylum cases
Radio Free Asia, March 26, 2025
Industrial Policies and Economic Espionage
TSMC, Intel and other top chipmakers slow Japan, Malaysia expansions
Cheng Tingfang and Lauly Li, Nikkei Asia, March 28, 2025
China Says It Is Aiming to Coordinate Tariff Response with Japan, South Korea
Wall Street Journal, April 1, 2025
China PMIs Show Some Signs of Economic Green Shoots Ahead of Tariffs
Wall Street Journal, March 31, 2025
China’s Big State Banks to Get $71.6 Billion Capital Injection
Wall Street Journal, March 30, 2025
Property sales at Chinese developer Country Garden drop by over a third
Thomas Hale, Financial Times, March 30, 2025
China’s export boom sparks record number of trade challenges
Ryan McMorrow and Wenjie Ding, Financial Times, March 30, 2025
Xi Jinping pitches China to global CEOs as protector of trade
Joe Leahy and Ryan McMorrow, Financial Times, March 28, 2025
The Chinese Electric Vehicle Founder Who Wants in on Trump’s America
Daisuke Wakabayashi, New York Times, March 31, 2025
Why China Is Wary of a Trump-Xi Summit
Keith Bradsher, New York Times, March 31, 2025
Chinese EVs chip away at Japan automakers' dominance in Indonesia
Tomoyoshi Oshikiri, Nikkei Asia, March 30, 2025
Beyond overcapacity: Chinese-style modernization and the clash of economic models
Jacob Gunter, et al., Merics, April 1, 2025
How Trump’s Tariffs Are Hitting One Chinese Factory Owner: ‘We Are Helpless’
Alexandra Stevenson, New York Times, April 1, 2025
BlackRock, at centre of Hutchison’s Panama ports row, has about US$16 bn in Chinese stocks
Zhang Shidong, South China Morning Post, April 1, 2025
China's latest year of property pain threatens Trump-proofing efforts
Stella Yifan Xie, Nikkei Asia, April 1, 2025
China Ready to Buy More Goods from India as US Tariffs Loom
Sudhi Ranjan Sen, Bloomberg, April 1, 2025
Why China Can’t Sort Out Its Property Market Mess
Pearl Liu, Bloomberg, March 31, 2025
China Braces for Trump Report That Will Set Stage for Deal Talks
Bloomberg, April 1, 2025
Estee Lauder faces US legal challenge over China sales practices
Jonathan Stempel, Reuters, March 31, 2025
What “the Global South” Really Means
Zachariah Mampilly, Foreign Affairs, April 1, 2025
Xi Showdown With Li Ka-shing Threatens China’s Pro-Business Push
Lucille Liu and Shirley Zhao, Bloomberg, March 31, 2025
With Antitrust Move, Xi Undermines His Own CEO Charm Offensive
Lingling Wei, Wall Street Journal, April 1, 2025
Obscurity by Design: Competing Priorities for America's China Policy
Tanner Greer, Foreign Policy Research Institute, March 27, 2025
Cyber and Information Technology
Is China eyeing a friendly pope in the Vatican?
Damian Thompson, The Spectator World, March 25, 2025
The New Era of Counterforce: Technological Change and the Future of Nuclear Deterrence
Keir A. Lieber, Daryl G. Press, MIT Press, April 1, 2025
Did US Multinationals Transfer Too Much Technology to China?
Jaedo Choi, et al., , March 18, 2025
China’s new chip tool champion SiCarrier offers self-reliance hope amid US restrictions
Wency Chen, South China Morning Post, March 30, 2025
Xiaomi’s Shares Fall After Fatal Car Accident Involving One of Its EVs
Jiahui Huang, Wall Street Journal, April 1, 2025
Huawei Posts Profit Drop but Revenue Signals Solid Comeback
Jiahui Huang, Wall Street Journal, March 31, 2025
How AI revolution is making a Chinese coal mine turn more profits than an investment bank
Stephen Chen, South China Morning Post, March 31, 2025
AI autonomy and endurance of China’s Rainbow-9 drone expected to change unmanned warfare
Enoch Wong, South China Morning Post, March 31, 2025
Nuclear risk from military AI prompts calls for US, China and others to seek agreement
Sylvie Zhuang, South China Morning Post, March 30, 2025
Chinese brain chip project speeds up human trials after first success
Eduardo Baptista, Reuters, March 31, 2025
China’s SpaceSail is expanding where Elon Musk is stumbling
Lam Le, Rest of World, March 31, 2025
China wants to lead the world in robots — from dogs to dancers
Lyric Li, Washington Post, March 29, 2025
Microsoft shutters AI lab in Shanghai, signalling a broader pullback from China
Wency Chen, South China Morning Post, April 1, 2025
Apple’s Cook meets top Chinese officials in charm offensive but offers no AI update
Wency Chen, South China Morning Post, March 26, 2025
Database Points to China’s Growing Use of A.I. for Online Surveillance and Censorship
Arthur Kaufman, China Digital Times, March 28, 2025
Military and Security Threats
U.S. unfreezes military aid to Philippines to bolster China deterrence
Ramon Royandoyan, Nikkei Asia, March 28, 2025
98. VIDEO – America Is on Track to Lose a Nuclear War with China
The Heritage Foundation, April 3, 2025
Hegseth Pledges to Step Up Military Cooperation with Japan
Martin Fackler, New York Times, March 30, 2025
China Holds Military Exercises Around Taiwan in Fresh Warning
Chris Buckley, New York Times, April 1, 2025
Taiwan dismisses China complaint about collision of navy ship, trawler
Ben Blanchard, Reuters, March 27, 2025
Taiwan navy ship and Chinese fishing boat collide, no injuries reported
Reuters, March 26, 2025
Navy prepares to revamp West Philippine Sea order of battle
Frances Mangosing, Inquirer.net, March 31, 2025
How Will Taiwan Defend a Disappearing Median Line in the Strait?
Silva Shih, CommonWealth Magazine, March 18, 2025
China Coast Guard’s Incursions into Kinmen’s Waters Reveal Two Long-term Goals
David Shen, CommonWealth Magazine, March 18, 2025
Chinese military near Australia 'sends a message,' Taiwan envoy says
Sophie Mak, Nikkei Asia, April 1, 2025
U.S. bolsters 'second island chain' defense with eye on China
Ken Moriyasu, Nikkei Asia, April 1, 2025
Taiwan coast guard warns of China using 'pretext' to launch war games this year
Yimou Lee, Reuters, April 1, 2025
One Belt, One Road Strategy
Hedging bets: Southeast Asia’s approach to China’s aid
Alexandre Dayant and Grace Stanhope, Lowy Institute, March 26, 2025
In Bangkok, Grim Vigils as People Seek Word of Relatives at Collapsed Building
Muktita Suhartono and Richard C. Paddock, New York Times, March 29, 2025
Are China and Russia on a Collision Course in Africa?
Jessica Moody, Foreign Policy, March 31, 2025
During Ramadan, China’s ‘Muslim Diplomacy’ Unfolds in Indonesia
Muhammad Zulfikar Rakhmat and Yeta Purnama, The Diplomat, March 27, 2025
Opinion
The realpolitik of Trump’s tariffs
Rana Foroohar, Financial Times, March 30, 2025
The US Is Losing the Contest to Divide the World
Hal Brands, Bloomberg, March 31, 2025
Watching China in Europe
Noah Barkin, German Marshall Fund of the United States, April 1, 2025
Winning the Tech War
Alex Rubin, Real Clear Defense, April 1, 2025
‘Made in China 2025' has been a partial success
Shamik Dhar, Nikkei Asia, March 30, 2025
In a broken world, China-Japan-Korea cooperation is Asia’s backbone
Wang Huiyao, South China Morning Post, April 1, 2025
Asia Is Getting Dangerously Unbalanced
Stephen M. Walt, Foreign Policy, April 1, 2025
I’ve learned firsthand that China will seek to snuff out my activism wherever I live.
Bob Fu, Wall Street Journal, March 27, 2025